Aparesh Kumar Singh, J: Heard counsel for the parties.

2. By Order dated 17th June 2014, following questions of law have been referred for consideration before this Bench by the learned Single Judge.

(i) Whether in a criminal proceeding a 'Caveat Application' is required to be filed as provided under Section 148(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure?

(ii) Whether the informant and the victim, who are ultimate sufferer of a criminal case, have legal right to appear, in a proceeding initiated at the instance of accused, through a private lawyer as per the provisions contained under Section 301(2) of the Cr.P.C., as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. International case (Supra)?

3. The background for making such a reference is as follows:

In a Habeas Corpus petition being W.P.(HB Cr.) No. 95/20212 (Bibi Samsha Khatoon vs. The State of Jharkhand & others), the learned Division Bench of this Court after finding that vakalatnama have been accepted on behalf of the respondent no. 5 by the Registry of the Court without any notice ever been issued to him, has held as follows:

"1. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued out the case at length. Counsel for the State is also present.

2. Notice upon respondent nos. 5 and 6 be served by ordinary process, for which, requisites etc. must be filed on or before 20th June, 2014.

3. Registry of this Court ought not to have accepted any Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 5 because no notice has ever been issued. Such type of error should not recur in future by the Registry of this Court. It ought to be kept in mind by the Registry of this Court that unless the Court issues notice upon the private respondent (s), in advance, no Vakalatnama can be filed by any party. What can be filed, in advance, is known as "Caveat Application" under Section 148 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Henceforth, such type of acceptance of Vakalatnama should be avoided by the Registry of this Court.

4. A copy of this order will be given to the Registrar General of this Court for issuance of necessary action.

5. We also direct the head of Basantrai Police Station of District Godda, to file an affidavit as to whether in the instant case, filed by the petitioner, charge sheet has been filed or not? This affidavit shall be filed by the aforesaid police officer on or before the next date of hearing.

6. Notice is made returnable on 14th July, 2014."

4. When the instant bail application was being heard before the learned Single Bench, an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the order dated 13th May 2014 passed in W.P.(HB Cr.) 95/2012, the informant could not appear through the counsel as no notice have been issued to the informant/private party, nor the informant/private party had filed a Caveat application under section 148(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, it was prayed that his appearance on behalf of the informant is liable to the rejected. Learned Single Judge, after noticing the provisions of section 301(2) of the Cr.PC. and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of J.K. International vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others [(2001) 3 SCC 462], was of the view that in a criminal proceeding, Code of Civil Procedure had no application and there is no provision for filing a caveat application in a criminal proceeding. Therefore, the aforesaid questions of law were referred to the Full Bench for reconsideration of the order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, as aforesaid. The matter has thereafter been placed before this Bench by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

5. At the outset, it must be stated that when the arguments were heard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of either of the parties, volunteered to assist the court on the aforesaid questions of law, rather than arguing for and against the aforesaid issue.

6. Mr. K.P. Deo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the